From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, Daniel Schoepe <daniel@schoepe.org>,
	notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: Patch review/application process
In-Reply-To: <87vcr3ehyg.fsf@convex-new.cs.unb.ca>
References: <878vo8kdl2.fsf@gilead.invalid> <87hb2n7w82.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<87sjm74z36.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<87vcr3ehyg.fsf@convex-new.cs.unb.ca>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9+39~g74c9dba (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:27:53 -0700
Message-ID: <87ehxr4jom.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:55:03 -0300, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> One thing I think we need to clarify a bit is are we tagging whole
> threads or individual messages in the database.  Because of the way
> notmuch search works, I had been tagging whole threads with
> notmuch::pushed (effectively to "mute" them) in the search
>=20
>                 notmuch search tag:notmuch::patch and \
>                         not tag:notmuch::pushed
>=20
> This is a bit aesthetically unappealing, anad every time someone replies
> to a thread it is effectively unmuted.

I have to say that I am very much against tagging threads with tags that
are really only applicable to specific messages, ie. ::patch, ::pushed
(I prefer ::applied, but whatever), etc.  For instance, a thread maybe
contain multiple patches, but it is not itself a patch.  Tagging entire
threads as ::patch means you can't do something like this:

notmuch show --format=3Dmbox tag:notmuch::patch and not tag:notmuch::applie=
d | git am

which would in my opinion be a shame.

> Since we don't have thread tagging yet (where e.g. tags are
> automagically applied to new messages I was thinking it might work have
> a tag like "notmuch::todo" and something like the following workflow
> (for patches)

I'm not sure why this is needed, since it seems to me that the whole
argument for tagging entire threads is that the individual messages are
*not* distinguishable from the thread.

> initially tag +notmuch::patch +notmuch::todo
>=20
> then when we "dispose" of the patch somehow, remove the notmuch::todo tag=
 and
> replace with
>         notmuch::pushed
>         notmuch::obsolete
>         or...

Please do *not* remove the ::patch tag.  There is really no reason to.
The message still contain a patch whether or not it is applied
upstream.  I really think this is important.  The addition of something
From=20a set of "resolution" tags (::pushed, ::applied, ::obsolete,
::rejected, etc.) should indicate resolution of the issue.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=lpjq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--